Year: 2012

From the polling firm McClatchy:

Nearly 65 percent say the 2005 law — which allows people who believe they are in grave danger to use deadly force to defend themselves

[…]

The 2005 law — which eliminates the so-called “duty to retreat” during a confrontation in a public place — remains popular in Florida, with only 18 percent saying it should be repealed.

Heritage is really doing an excellent job of covering the proceedings, without a lot of hysteria. He speaks of potential dangers in the treaty, some of which I share:

Second, most major U.S. arms manufacturers have an international financing, insurance, and parts and components chain. The ATT could become a means for foreign countries to pressure U.S. firms to exit the market, reducing the ability of Americans to make effective use of their firearms rights.

[…]

Just because the ATT is not a “gun grab” treaty does not mean it raises no domestic concerns: “Gun grabs” are less plausible than “death by a thousand cuts.”

Go read the whole thing. Extrano’s alley is pointing out that Graham and McCain are signaling weakness, and might need some encouragement. I suspect they just want to have specifics to base any opposition on, and we do not yet have a draft, but a friendly reminder to the Senators would probably help if you are one of their respective constituents.

The ATF has issued a response to the public comments it received on their original 2011 guidance on the importability of shotguns. Their response is best summed up thusly:

We have listened to your concerns, and have decided to summarily dismiss them. But you may have a point with those forward pistol groups, so we’ll give on that.

Lots of talk about the urgent need of the treaty, along with assurances that this won’t affect domestic gun policy:

The Arms Trade Treaty should not in any way handicap the legitimate right of self-defense. Acting together, we can strengthen international peace and security and the rule of law by requiring universal establishment of responsible national standards for the arms trade.

[…]

Moreover, we must acknowledge and respect that this negotiation is not an attempt to intrude, either in principle or process, into states’ internal activities, laws, or practices concerning the domestic possession, use, or movement of arms. Rather, this treaty will regulate only the international arms trade. Any attempt to include provisions in the treaty that would interfere with each state’s sovereign control over the domestic use or movement of arms is clearly outside the scope of our mandate.

And interesting question will be, if the treaty draft does indeed come out to not affect civilian arms, and Obama gives the treaty his endorsement, how does that affect this as an election issue? The other issue is that once the treaty is established, the anti-gun NGOs will be pushing to expand the scope of the treaty.